Aguirre Vs Rana
Uploaded by
PammyAguirre Vs Rana
Uploaded by
PammyRuling:
AGUIRRE VS RANA
EN BANC[ B.M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003 ] the Court held that “practice of law” means any activity, in or out of court,
which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training
DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, COMPLAINANT, and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform acts which are
VS. usually performed by members of the legal profession. Generally, to practice
law is to render any kind of service which requires the use of legal knowledge
EDWIN L. RANA, RESPONDENT
or skill.
Facts:
The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a
privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special
Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. before the
qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege
scheduled mass oath-taking, complainant Aguirre filed against respondent a
presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational
Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar.
attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A
bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the
The Court allowed respondent to take his oath. Respondent took the bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even
lawyer’s oath on the scheduled date but has not signed the Roll of Attorneys from one who has passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking
up to now. admission had practiced law without a license.
Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the
counsel for a candidate in an election. lawyer’s oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally
makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar
On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that respondent is a examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to
municipal government employee, being a secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential
of Mandaon, Masbate. As such, respondent is not allowed by law to act as requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his
counsel for a client in any court or administrative body. lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of
Attorneys.
On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, complainant
accuses respondent of acting as counsel for vice mayoralty candidate George
Bunan without the latter engaging respondent’s services. Complainant claims
that respondent filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent the proclamation of
the winning vice mayoralty candidate.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and
thus does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar